Felicity Lawrence is a gas, isn\’t she?

Her essential argument is that private, Christian, charity is filling, successfully, the inevitable holes in the State\’s welfare provision.

Therefore we must do more.

Eh?

Doesn\’t the fact that the holes are being filled mean that the holes are being filled?

16 comments on “Felicity Lawrence is a gas, isn\’t she?

  1. The Felicity Lawrences of this world can always find a hole for someone else’s money – even if they have to dig the hole themselves.

  2. Amazing what you learn from the Guardian. Apparently the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board is responsible for poverty in Hammersmith & Fulham.

  3. Felicity is important. That class of person should not be expected to mix with the plebs except on a whim, to soothe her soul. Much better to have someone paid for that kind of messy work. It would also help the unemployment figures. I’m sure we can find the money from somewhere. Daddy always could.

  4. Amazing facts from the Guardian indeed. Apparently a basic healthy diet for an unemployed young adult costs £46 per week. Since I spend considerably less than this on food, I must be positively wasting away!

  5. “Apparently the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board is responsible for poverty in Hammersmith & Fulham.”

    Hasn’t Tower Hamlets been on the receiving end of Common Agricultural Policy handouts?

    Maybe there’s all sorts of farming going on across Central London that completely escapes notice. Paddy fields in Kilburn? Flocks in Shepherds Bush? Maybe there really are cattle trucks on the Underground

    Should an investigation be funded?

  6. Of course there’s a lot of farming in Chelsea – what else would the tractors be for?

    The £46 per week for food seems to come from this report: http://www.minimumincomestandard.org/downloads/2011_launch/MIS_report_2011.pdf (Table 1 on p15). The food selection is described in the equivalent report from 2008
    “The groups constructed detailed menus for different household types, negotiating among themselves to create diets that were reasonably healthy, practical in terms of lifestyle, and realistic in terms of preferences and treats.
    Using a software programme, a nutritionist examined these weekly menus to ensure that they met the current government guidelines for healthy eating (Department of Health, 1991), and were nutritionally adequate…”

    So the Guardian has messed up the link, and the diet is not quite as cheap as it could be. All the same, my reaction to reading about people reliant on charity to feed their children is not to sneer at the writer.

  7. Andrew M: Just did my own sums. Take the last calendar year; pretty much bang on half that. And I’m certainly not on anything like starvation rations.

    Heaven only knows what the JRT thinks we need to be eating: foie gras and champagne, perhaps.

  8. PaulB: the claim is £46 for a single person. I certainly don’t know what it’s like to bring up children and don’t criticise those who do for caring about parents who struggle.

    But as a single person I can be absolutely certain that the JRT figures cannot be correct when it comes to people in my situation, even allowing for the fact that I am probably an outlier. My speculative guess is that wastage is probably many times lower for smaller households, and the JRT have over-allowed for this.

    However, it doesn’t do credibility any good, does it, to go round propagating figures which people can check and note that they are doing better than this? (Contrast with rent, where the JRT figure is pretty good once you allow for four years’ inflation.)

  9. Well if we scrapped to feed-in tariffs to subsidise windmills and solar panels that would help with the percentage down to fuel- especially if we also encouraged fracking and halved the cost of gas as has happened in the states.
    Hey, if we stopped worrying about global warming at all maybe heating would be unnecessary- no fuel bills at all.
    Or maybe it’s better these people both freeze and starve than that the place gets warmer.
    What is the balance of opinion in the Guardian?

  10. Typo hopefully fixed. Sorry

    Well if we scrapped the feed-in tariffs to subsidise windmills and solar panels that would help with the percentage down to fuel- especially if we also encouraged fracking and halved the cost of gas as has happened in the states.
    Hey, if we stopped worrying about global warming at all maybe heating would be unnecessary- no fuel bills at all.
    Or maybe it’s better these people both freeze and starve than that the place gets warmer.
    What is the balance of opinion in the Guardian?

  11. Re: a comment on another thread this morning from Flatcap Army:

    http://timworstall.com/2012/01/31/err-no-13/#comment-87017

    “your views chime with mine; for all that right-wingers are portrayed as hate-filled fountains of bile just mention Thatcher to a Labour voter and wait for the genuine hatred to come pouring out”

    One of the first comments on this piece by Maketorieshistory:

    “No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.

    Aneurin Bevan.”

    Recommend? (379)….

    Er, from the foodbank website:

    http://www.trusselltrust.org/real-stories

    “When temperatures plummeted in January 2010 foodbank clients across the UK were forced to choose between eating and heating….”

    Remind me, which party was in government in January 2010?

  12. Remind me, which party was in government in January 2010?

    It doesn’t matter – 12 1/2 years is clearly far too short a time to undo the massive devastation Thatcher managed to cause in her 11.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.